Materialism (aka Non-materialists in denial)

  • Thread starter FZ+
  • Start date
In summary, Materialism is the belief that only physical things truly exist and all things in the universe can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena. It does not imply determinism or fatalism and is compatible with the concept of free will. Beauty and other abstract concepts are seen as behaviors of the brain and thus properties of matter. However, the existence of virtual particles, ghosts, and tachyons in quantum field theories is still a matter of contingency and not fully proven. Overall, Materialism is a rejection of the belief in immaterial entities and the idea that things must be
  • #36
Originally posted by Jimmy
I was using the term 'perception' loosely. My post did seem to focus mostly on the physical aspects of consciousness and the transfer of information.

Hmmmmm, I think I must have really misinterpreted your point. I am embarrassed to say I still don't fully understand it. I assumed you were doing a sort of human mind - computer analogy. I might have been thrown off when I saw the word "information."

Originally posted by Jimmy
I was not, however, trying to push the idea of pure materialism.

Although I love to dispute the principles of materialist philosophy, I think there are people who have good reasons for thinking it is true. My biggest objections so far have been people's debating tactics and their objectivity. It's perfectly fine with me if someone wants to be a materialist, an immaterialist, or anything in between as long as they debate fairly and objectively.

Originally posted by Jimmy
Like I asked before, what is it that extracts the information that is represented by the neurons and how they operate together?

I did notice that, and wondered what you were saying there. To me, what/whomever it is that is "extracting" is what makes me most interested in consciousness.

Originally posted by Jimmy
I was trying to convey the idea that information, after you examine the physical processes behind it, is abstract. I don't believe that the physical aspects of our brains alone can explain consciousness/awareness and especially self-awareness.

I think this is where I need more explanation. Do you mean its abstractness suggests it is the interpreting element of consciousness that makes that abstraction something conscious?

Originally posted by Jimmy
On a side note: I think about these things frequently but I have not studied neurology or consciousness formally. The things I am saying are no doubt oversimplified and maybe just plain wrong. Forgive me if I use terms loosely. I was intrigued by this discussion and wanted to partake in the discussion. I won't be offended if people point out my mistakes. That's why I'm here discussing this topic. I want to learn.

You are doing fine as far as I'm concerned. I hope you didn't take my way of debating (which is to rather intensely line up everything I can in support of my postion ) as a criticism of you. I assumed from certain things you said in your post you were arguing in support of the materialist view; and so, in the spirit of debate, I challenged your points (as I understood them).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Hmmmmm, I think I must have really misinterpreted your point. I am embarrassed to say I still don't fully understand it. I assumed you were doing a sort of human mind - computer analogy. I might have been thrown off when I saw the word "information."

Like I said earlier, your misinterpretation is my fault. I wasn't exactly clear. No need for embarrassment. :)

As far as "information", I'm just using that as a general term to represent the relationships between physical objects. I know I'm bandying that phrase around quite a bit. Take my earlier example of speech. The physical process that describe sound and the air molecules themselves are important. But when we speak, what's really important are the ideas we are trying to convey. The words we speak set up a complex array of sound waves but the original idea is 'riding' along on those waves in an abstract sense. The sounds would be meaningless to someone who didn't speak the same language.
Does that make any sense?


Although I love to dispute the principles of materialist philosophy, I think there are people who have good reasons for thinking it is true. My biggest objections so far have been people's debating tactics and their objectivity. It's perfectly fine with me if someone wants to be a materialist, an immaterialist, or anything in between as long as they debate fairly and objectively.

I'm not complete materialist in that sense. And I'm not trying to push a theory. I'm just talking. I've always been curious about these things. I'm really not sure where I stand. When you come right down to it, what our senses perceive about the physical world could be completely subjective. Our brains have to filter out an enormous amount of information just to be able to make sense of anything. I often wonder what's lost in the process of just looking at something. Vision is a complicated process. Light comes into the eye, triggers electro-chemical reactions, causes intricate patterns of neurons to fire. After all that, the mind has to interpret all this information. I wonder what's lost in the translation. Hell, we don't even see the thing we are looking at in a sense. We just sense the light that happens to reflect or scatter off of the object. A photon certainly isn't the same thing as the constituent particles that make up a material object. Actually, all of our senses depend on interactions of the outer electrons of atoms. Touch, taste, smell, sight, hearing.

We don't even directly sense everything that exists. Radio waves for example; We know now that they are basically the same as visible light waves at lower energy levels. We don't see them, however. In fact, we see a very narrow band of a much larger spectrum of light. The same with sound waves.

I've often wondered what it would be like to see through the eyes of someone else. Of course my mind would invalidate the experiment because everyone looks at things slightly different but I still wonder. Who can prove that we see physical things in the same way, for instance. I think generally humans are the same and would function much in the same way but how can you be sure? Take the color red, for example. You and I learned that this particular thing we see is called red (unless you're color blind). When we see an object that is red, we are able to agree on that description because we both learned through experience that that is red. You can't possibly know that what I see is the same, however. What if I see the color red like you see the color blue. We would never know. We both learned that this particular color is called red but that doesn't mean we see the 'same' thing. If that really has any meaning at all. I suppose it doesn't but I wonder. I guess it is a little far-fetched. Have I gotten completely off the track? I just enjoy this too much I guess.

I did notice that, and wondered what you were saying there. To me, what/whomever it is that is "extracting" is what makes me most interested in consciousness.

I guess 'extracting' is not a good choice of words. After it's all said and done, after all the physical processes are finished doing what they do, something still has to interpret the information. That's why I'm interested in this as well.

I think this is where I need more explanation. Do you mean its abstractness suggests it is the interpreting element of consciousness that makes that abstraction something conscious?

No, not really. I'm not suggesting that there is some special property of abstractness that lends consciousness. I'm just saying that thoughts, ideas and images we see in our mind are abstract. We need all the neurons and receptors in our brain, obviously, but they are not the thoughts, ideas, and images. Numbers written down on paper are physical representations of abstract ideas. I think what is even more abstract is how quantities in math and physics relate to each other as opposed to just the numbers themselves.

You are doing fine as far as I'm concerned. I hope you didn't take my way of debating (which is to rather intensely line up everything I can in support of my position ) as a criticism of you. I assumed from certain things you said in your post you were arguing in support of the materialist view; and so, in the spirit of debate, I challenged your points (as I understood them).

Thanks for the encouragement. I was never offended in any way by your responses. I am enjoying this too much, in fact. :wink:
Anything I say here is just for the sake of discussion. I'm not trying to shove my own view down anyone's throat. I don't really have a too much of a view one way or the other. Catch you later...
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
What makes you think I need all that elementary neuroscience, lectures about Occams Razor, thoroughly misapplied fallacy accusations, and the refutations of paranormal claims as though I ever suggested they had validity? You know, there are informed people who look at the evidence and come to different opinions than yours.
Sorry if I come across as an over-bearing skeptic, its not my intention to come off as intellectually repugnant.

Although you've changed your handle here again, your debating tactics are exactly the same. Whether you call yourself Yahweh or logical atheist or biologyforums, you can't hide your love for only your own opinions, your false representation of yourself, and your overall lack of integrity in debating. But don't worry, if they let you stay this time I won't be bothering you again.
You have me mixed up with somebody else.

I believe Zero can vouch for my validity.

I would be Yahweh, from the JREF forums. Yahweh is the only name I use for the JREF forums, I recently signed up for PhysicsForums under the name "Yahweh". I've only ever actively posted on the JREF boards (I've made a few stray posts on other boards), and I began posting on these boards recently as well. When the name "Yahweh" isn't available, I use the name "Yahweh of Nod". There is a Christian board I post on as well, but I don't use the handle Yahweh for it.

If you realize that you've made a mistake in your judgement in prematurely judging that I am somebody else, just post or PM me with "Oops my bad, sorry 'bout that" and we can move on.

Most people are actually pleasantly surprised when they find out who the person is behind the keyboard typing this post right now...

From Here:

I am impressed by Yahweh. There's a great number of smart, debate-worthy kids in this world, but unlike the rest of them, he holds his tongue and does not bring insults into the fray. The clean-cut style of debating, mixed with a VERY thorough background on his fave subjects, makes him an ace debater. But it's the fact he is very young that makes me so impressed. Behavior and maturity I'd expect from a 40 year old coming from a HS kid? This guy's going to be aces if he doesn't get cranky in his old age (like I feel I may).
---- Keneke

Yahweh; So young and so clever and polite. A valuable member to this forum.
---- PlindBoe

From here also:

I've been a lurker for quite a bit, and decided to register a while back, and haven't made any worthwile posts, and just decided to pop in and post here.

I'm not as brilliant as Yahweh, not as sullen as Lord Kenneth (Although I could identify with his position), but I'm a skeptical hard teen atheist, currently having a status of bum, out of school due to a long streak of depression after a lethargic fall from grace.
---- RabbiSatan
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Originally posted by Mentat
What about in string theory approaches, that are background-dependent? In this case, there would be wavicles (strings) and there would also be spacetime...I wanted my definition of Materialism to fit all possible circumstances.
It doesn't matter much. If such a thing as background free string theory exists, we can still easily classify a physical object as one that exists in spacetime. A string certainly does, even if the overall relations define spacetime itself. Other things such as a wave function can be considered physical, because they are properties of spacetime.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I don't quite see how spacetime alone covers it.
Why not? Can you think of anything in the physical world that isn't to be found in spacetime?
 
  • #41


I guess I should say that my real goal here is not really to define materialism. My real goal is to try to determine what the distinction is between the various views being presented here in this forum among the people using the words materialists and non-materialists. I thought that trying to get a definition of these words would help me understand the distinction. So far, no definition has been able to do that.

Originally posted by Mentat
Materialism: The belief that physical reality exists, and that there is nothing else but this physical reality. The definition of "physical" may change with scientific discovery, but whatever that definition is, that's all that exists.


Obviously, this one does not do that because it simply means everything. There is no opposing view to this. And since we know from the heated discussions in this forum there are different views, then this obviously is not the word that helps me understand the distinction.

Materialism: The belief that wavicles and spacetime exist, and that nothing else but these exists at all.

This is a better attempt but it still begs even more definitions like "wavicles" and "spacetime". So while this in the right direction. More work needs to be done. I'm almost certain that when this process ends that the resulting definition will be exactly what the first definition is. A meaningless one with no opposing view.

I'm beginning to think that the distinction has little resemblance to the old philsophical views of materialism. It would probably be good if that term were dropped completely, since it is obvious that people are using different definitions and then debating as if they are debating on the same concept.

Here is my attempt at the distinction:

I think it is similar to what Royce was saying. I think that it has more to do with what is fundamental in reality. What is the essence of the first cause? Did mindless, accidental processes create intent? Or was it the other way around? This may not be the exact distinction. But I think exploring what the distinction is and then debating it, would be more productive then continuing the silly situation that exists with the word "materialism".
 
  • #42
Originally posted by Eh
It doesn't matter much. If such a thing as background free string theory exists, we can still easily classify a physical object as one that exists in spacetime. A string certainly does, even if the overall relations define spacetime itself. Other things such as a wave function can be considered physical, because they are properties of spacetime.

Wave-functions are properties of spacetime? Also, aren't there supposed to be strings that are wound around some of the curled up dimensions of space? Doesn't this mean that there must both be energy (in the form of strings) and spacetime?
 
  • #43


Well, Fliption, what about if we just say that "Whatever science defines as "physical" is physical, and there is nothing else besides these things.

I just checked the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, under "Metaphysics":

Perhaps the most familiar question in metaphysics is whether there are only material entities - materialism - or only mental entities, i.e., minds and their states - idealism - or both - dualism. Here "entity" has its broadest sense: Anything real.

From this, it can be deduced that, if something "mindful" (non-physical) exists at all, then you do not have materialism (you, instead, have dualism). If, however, there is no such phenomenon as a non-physical entity, then you have actual materialism.

I mention this because your suggested distinction (whether "primary reality" is material or "mindful") is based on the assumption that some "mindful" exists at all, in which case you would have no room for actual Materialism.
 
  • #44
Originally posted by FZ+
To spare Flipton, LWSleeth, Royce et al from my rather continuous ranting on the other thread, I've set this one up so my ranting may be safely ignored. :wink:

What I think materialism is:

My form of materialism is the fundamental denial of a material immaterial distinction. All concepts thought of as immaterial are thus either material in disguise, or non-existent entities. All things that are real are material, and this reality is because it acts in a material way - by having some sort of influence on other things which make it possible to be measured or perceived. (Of course, I think Flipton believes this not to be materialism at all, so I'll be happy for anyone else to come up with a name for it.)

In short:
Material = exerting some sort of influence that renders it detectable
Reality = that which is material
Immaterial reality = contradiction in terms, as to be real, it must become material.

What do you think?

Not much. Simply because something influences something else, doesn't mean it can be measured or perceived. I'm thinking of (phenomenological) consciousness here. You cannot say it is measurable unless any observer with suitable instruments could detect it. But it cannot be detected unless you either conflate the neurological correlates of consciousness with (phenomenological)consciousness itself, or you suppose that phenomenological consciousness is a causally efficacious reality in its own right. The former presupposes materialism, the latter supposes interactionist dualism (since phenomenological consciousness is only knowable from the 1st person perspective). As a materialist you would presumably opt for the former. But what does it mean to say that phenomenological consciousness is one and the same thing as neurons firing?

Simply because consciousness might be able to affect the physical doesn't entail that consciousness is itself physical. In order to be material/physical it must be able to be discerned from the third person perspective.

Huh?? Why am I only being allowed 10,000 characters?? :confused: :eek:
 
  • #45


Originally posted by Mentat
I mention this because your suggested distinction (whether "primary reality" is material or "mindful") is based on the assumption that some "mindful" exists at all, in which case you would have no room for actual Materialism.

We've been into this before. There is a difference between assigning words (semantics) and deciding what is truth. The distinction that I suggested has nothing to do with whether anything actually exist or not. The distinction is about which of the understood "concepts" comes first and caused the other.

There is no sense in claiming that assigning a word to a concept causes it to be true in reality. This view is extreme, unreasonable, and has no place in a philosphy forum. I will not spend another 12 pages debating this one again, as I am confident that enough people will agree to make this discussion productive without having to do that.
 
Last edited:
  • #46


Originally posted by Fliption
We've been into this before. There is a difference between assigning words (semantics) and deciding what is truth. The distinction that I suggested has nothing to do with whether anything actually exist or not. The distinction is about which of the understood "concepts" comes first and caused the other.

There is no sense in claiming that assigning a word to a concept causes it to be true in reality. This view is extreme, unreasonable, and has no place in a philosphy forum. I will not spend another 12 pages debating this one again, as I am confident that enough people will agree to make this discussion productive without having to do that.

I agree that this should be gotten over as quickly as possible (I don't want to go through another "why the bias against materialism" ), but I do think that, when defining terms that will deal with the very nature of reality, the use of faulty semantics could have profound implications, which is why I mentioned it. If one says that the whole distinction is based on which part of reality ("mindful" or material) is primary, one has already assumed that there is a "mindful" reality, which precludes Materialism right from the start (it would be as useless as you say my definitions are, and for the exact same reasons).
 
Last edited:
  • #47
Originally posted by Canute

Yahwah
The smell of a fart does not exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


HOhohohahaha. Ahem, sorry. You're obviously not a regular user of public transport. You'll certainly make a great partner for someone one day.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The process of smelling a fart is a physical process occurring in your brain. The memory of what a fart smells like is stored in the structure of your brain. The experience of remembering what a fart smells like is a process in your brain, and so on.

When we talk about the smell of a fart, we are talking about a process as though it were an object. That is just a quirk of language, based on intuitive preconceptions which date back hundreds, and even thousands of years. It is not an indication of what the true nature of reality is.

I think I see where you are going with this. The mistake in the "primary and secondary qualities" idea is not that there is no difference between things like length, and things like color. It is that the color of an object is not a "quality" of that object at all.

The color of an object is a part of the experience you have when you see, or remember seeing, that object. It is a physical process occurring in your brain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What do mean here by 'an experience'? An experience of something that does not exist? The experience of the smell of a fart exists (how did I get into this?) but the smell doesn't? That makes no sense.

These are tricky issues and you've obviously thought about them a lot. But you are letting your death grip on your assumptions lead you into inconsistencies.

Yahwah just seems to be echoing Stimpson J Cat's arguments on the jref board. Stimpson specifically stated to me the smell of a fart does not exist. Go
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25726&highlight=primary [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
Originally posted by Mentat
Wave-functions are properties of spacetime?

If the wave function is the probabilistic distribution of energy throughout at every point of spacetime, then yes, you can consider it a property.

Also, aren't there supposed to be strings that are wound around some of the curled up dimensions of space? Doesn't this mean that there must both be energy (in the form of strings) and spacetime?

If spacetime is nothing but the relations among strings, then there are no separate "things" here. Consider a single string. It has length as a fundamental property, but it also has energy as a property. So you could consider length and energy to both be properties of the same fundamental thing, with spacetime being the finished product. Locating a string and calling it physical based on it's location in spacetime is no different than slicing up lines on Euclids plane and calling them geometric objects.
 
  • #49


Originally posted by Fliption
I guess I should say that my real goal here is not really to define materialism. My real goal is to try to determine what the distinction is between the various views being presented here in this forum among the people using the words materialists and non-materialists. I thought that trying to get a definition of these words would help me understand the distinction. So far, no definition has been able to do that.



I'm not a materialist, but it seems to be that materialism simply means that there is an ontologically self-subsistent reality which is susceptible to a mathematical description by the hard sciences, that this reality is the totality of all that exists, and that this reality, if organised in a particular way, logically entails conscious awareness.
 
  • #50


Originally posted by Mentat
Well, Fliption, what about if we just say that "Whatever science defines as "physical" is physical, and there is nothing else besides these things.

Because that's a ridiculous definition. Science cannot define physical because science has nothing to say on the subject of metaphysics. Besides, science is not a conscious entity so how could science define anything? If you mean scientists, then I'm afraid they are failing to understand what the word material or physical means.
 
  • #51
Good to see you, Ian.
 
  • #52
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yahwah just seems to be echoing Stimpson J Cat's arguments on the jref board. Stimpson specifically stated to me the smell of a fart does not exist. Go
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25726&highlight=primary [Broken]
In fact I am "echoing" the statements, I find them very intelligent and well thoughtout.

The point is that Stimpson is differenciating between sensations which occur in the "mind" and things which exist concretely.

Sensations (the smell of a fart) do not exist concretely (i.e. Sensations are not substances, they are not made of matter or exist in 3 dimensional space).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
Originally posted by Yahweh
The point is that Stimpson is differenciating between sensations which occur in the "mind" and things which exist concretely.

Sensations (the smell of a fart) do not exist concretely (i.e. Sensations are not substances, they are not made of matter or exist in 3 dimensional space). [/B]
It seems that from the pong of the humble fart we know that there exist things which are not made of matter and do not have extension. This is the problem with strict physicalism, it leaves things out.
 
  • #54
Originally posted by Yahweh
In fact I am "echoing" the statements, I find them very intelligent and well thoughtout.

The point is that Stimpson is differenciating between sensations which occur in the "mind" and things which exist concretely.

Sensations (the smell of a fart) do not exist concretely (i.e. Sensations are not substances, they are not made of matter or exist in 3 dimensional space).
Ummmm...I'd have to disagree with that...odors are carried by chemicals in the air(physical) which go though the air(physical) until they reach your (physical) nose, where they cause a chemical reaction which sends a (physical) signal to your brain(which is also physical).

Where is there a non-physical event in this?
 
  • #55


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Because that's a ridiculous definition. Science cannot define physical because science has nothing to say on the subject of metaphysics. Besides, science is not a conscious entity so how could science define anything? If you mean scientists, then I'm afraid they are failing to understand what the word material or physical means.
Since no one else can define metaphysics, let alone measure it, what can you do?
 
  • #56
Originally posted by Zero
Ummmm...I'd have to disagree with that...odors are carried by chemicals in the air(physical) which go though the air(physical) until they reach your (physical) nose, where they cause a chemical reaction which sends a (physical) signal to your brain(which is also physical).

Where is there a non-physical event in this?
Umm, the smell?
 
  • #57


Originally posted by Zero
Since no one else can define metaphysics, let alone measure it, what can you do?
It's perfectly easy to define metaphysics. It's the study of what lies beyond science.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
43
Views
10K
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
51
Views
22K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
804
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
95
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
9K
Back
Top